Exploring Who, Where, and When: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of a New Study Abroad Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study abroad programs can have a significant impact on the lives of college students. These programs create opportunities for students to experience the world, while earning college credit. As Cal Poly is transitioning from the quarter system to the semester system, there is an increase demand for a new study abroad program that is tailored to students’ preferences. Understanding what students want from a study abroad program is extremely important. To better understand student preferences, a survey was created and distributed to Cal Poly students. The goal of the survey was to identify trends amongst students to get a better understanding of how to design a successful program The survey provided data on preferred program locations, durations, academic terms, and demographics. Results showed that most students interested in studying abroad were in their third or fourth year and preferred either full-semester or 8-week summer programs. Europe was the most popular destination, with high interest in countries such as Italy, Spain, Sweden, and Germany. These results will help Cal Poly CM program create a new study abroad program which has student buy-in and strong connections with providing them with real world construction experiences, thus providing a more meaningful experience for our students.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".